How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your home?

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

So if people kill in mass shootings only because they hate, and not because they have easy access to guns, does that mean that Americans are more hateful as a people?

If you're asking me......yeah, I could see that. As a nation, we don't take care of each other. We aren't widely vested enough in the notion of community and society. The gulf between the haves and have-nots has never been greater; everyone's motivated by 'what's in it for ME and not 'how can I contribute to maintaining a harmonious society?"

Many other nations treat their citizens with much more dignity than we do, in my opinion. I don't think it's a coincidence that the nations with much more humane cultural norms (i.e. better balanced work/home life, ample vacation requirements, ease of access to physical and mental healthcare, and policies that are family-friendly like maternity leave, etc.) are the very same nations with ridiculous low violent crime rates.

 

[Sha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

In 2007, there were 41,059 automobile fatalities in the U.S.

In that same year, there were 31,224 gun fatalities. Of those 31,224, more than half (56%) were suicide at 17,352. Gun deaths attributed to homicide (violence upon others) totaled 12,632.

More lives are lost to auto accidents than to guns. I wonder if we should ban car ownership too?

Where did you get your stats?

Like I said above - it wouldn't make sense to ban cars (even though many people die by them) because their purpose and value in modern society far exceeds their ability to cause damage.

I don't think I can make the same argument for guns..

 

[Rhea]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

In 2007, there were 41,059 automobile fatalities in the U.S.

In that same year, there were 31,224 gun fatalities. Of those 31,224, more than half (56%) were suicide at 17,352. Gun deaths attributed to homicide (violence upon others) totaled 12,632.

More lives are lost to auto accidents than to guns. I wonder if we should ban car ownership too?

I do wish that there were harsher penalties in the area of the US that I'm familiar for reckless and dangerous driving. Including use of a mobile phone while driving. The penalties here, in England, are very harsh compared to those in Georgia. I believe that putting those rules into effect would help to eliminate the automobile fatalities within the US.

For me, the comparison of who died due to what lack of rules, laws, or controls doesn't matter. It doesn't make sense, justifying the comparatively low rate of gun deaths with automobile deaths. It's too high and needs to be fixed full stop.

 

[Rhea]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

The picture of an untrained, untried person with a gun in his or her pocket is unsettling, if you expect they are just waiting for a reason to pull it out & use it. But think about this: of all the articles you've read or heard about shootings, how many were committed by the guns of the thousands of average guys on the street? Close to none. Isn't that why Travon Martin is a big story?

Violence & rage are endemic to all societies & strict gun laws do not prevent shootings. They happen where laws are lenient and where laws are tight. And not only in the U.S.

Recent mass killings by one shooter outside U.S. (does not include injured who survived):

Norway (Anders Breivik) 2011: Killed 77
Belgium (Nordine Amrani) 2011: 7
Germany (Tim Kretschmer) 2009: 15
UK (Derek Bird) 2010: 12
Finland (Ibraham Schkupolli) 2009: 5
Finland (Matti Juhani Saari) 2008 10
Switzerland (F. Leibacher) 2001 14
South Africa (Bulelani Vukwana) 2001 11
Australia (Martin Bryant) 1996 35

Not confined to recent times, either. A sampling of earlier mass shootings:

Japan (Toi Matsui) 1938 30
Germany (Ernst Wagner) 1913 14

This is only a sampling. There are many more, in "peaceful" countries in "peaceful" times. Someone determined to find a way will find a way. That's the sad truth. Fortunately these eruptions are rare. Nobody has managed yet to predict who and when. As Aljdewey said, we can't outlaw fertilizer because someone makes a bomb with it. We can't outlaw knives when people are stabbed. I'm no wiser about this than anyone else & it's tragic.

More basic for the future of humanity is the urge to restrict everyone when one individual goes haywire. Benjamin Franklin knew that: "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose both.”

--- Laurie

Could you please list the recent mass killings by one shooter in the US for comparison?

 

[LoveLikeCrazy]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

3 guns here!

ETA: i'm not going to get involved in any gun law debates here. People either feel strongly one way or another. But i will say that i know a whole lot of RESPONSIBLE gun owners. Unfortunately, the irresponsible people show who show up on the news, "ruin" it for everyone. Now theres the "blanket statement" that all guns are bad.

In reality NO guns are bad. Bad people are bad. And if they didn't have a gun, they would choose something else. Just my 2 cents.

 

[JewelFreak]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

The list is only a sampling. Far from an account of all rampage shootings in each country. You can find a list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Americas though I don't know how complete it is.

Remember too that the U.S. population is vastly greater than that of any of the other countries listed. I'm not saying other places have more of these incidents, simply that they are not an America-only specialty, as mythology would have it. Don't know if there are figures per capita.

I also don't think these rampages owe anything to how we treat each other, as someone wrote. Individuals who take out their rage on others have a screw loose. Usually they go haywire after a specific stressor -- the sort that others manage to deal with without violence. What could we do to prevent them? Not fire an incompetent employee? Not divorce a husband who scares or abuses us? Never break up with a BF? Not throw a failing student out of school? Those are the types of things that set most mass killers off. Regular everyday bumps in our roads. I think often these are people who believe their failures are someone else's fault, never their own. Barring mental illness, of course. There is a great deal of research being done on schizophrenia & other mental diseases. Better medications have relieved symptoms & made life much better for sufferers. More will come. It's a very large area of research.

We could create a police state where people are thrown in the can because they seem like they might do something violent. That could include you or me at various moments in our lives. Many people, according to psychiatrists, sometimes appear to be on the brink but never do anything wrong. With the little we know now, I don't know what we do except keep vigilant, learn to protect ourselves & families in whatever ways seem logical to us, and accept that tragedy is unpredictable.

--- Laurie

 

[Laila619]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

In reality NO guns are bad. Bad people are bad. And if they didn't have a gun, they would choose something else. Just my 2 cents.

Perhaps that's true, but we sure make it easy for them to get a gun.

 

[AGBF]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Sorry Deb, heartily disagree. ANY weapon greases the wheel of killing, and far more weapons are more *readily* accessible than guns. Guns are the LAST weapon to be legally readily accessible on impulse.

Speaking for my state, you cannot purchase a gun without a gun license. To get that, have to complete gun safety training at a state-approved facility. Upon completion, you have to file a license application, and approval of that application requires submitting to an extensive interview with a local detective in your town. When you finally get the license, you have to go to one of the legally authorized dealers to obtain the firearm, and then you have to fill out paperwork and submit it to your local municipality. That takes about 4-8 weeks in my state. [/b]This hardly lends itself to impulse.. The only way to hasten that process is to obtain a gun illegally........and in that case, gun laws don't help because you're already operating outside the law.

By comparison, I can get a 10" Kitchen-Aid butcher knife in under 10 minutes at my local Kohl's, and I don't need to worry about the larger guy fending me off with it if I'm able to attack from behind. With slightly more time (30 minutes), I can across the state border to obtain enough explosives at the fireworks retailer to blow up half my city block without so much as a backward glance. With only slightly more effort and a little time spent with Professor Internet, I could go to Agway to purchase enough fertilizer to torch an entire building.

With respect to your skill argument, I can assure you that not everyone could even strike a person by firing a gun, especially mortally. There is skill required there too.

I cannot think of ONE mass shooting incident that wasn't heavily planned and premeditated.....nothing impulse about it. There's a lot less impulse involved in that than there is in running someone off the road or grabbing a nearby kitchen knife in the heat of an argument.

ANYTHING can kill people if the people trying to kill want to kill. That's not exclusive to guns.

OK, al, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. The batman attacker can't get a gun. He can get a butcher knife. That cramps his style, doesn't it? How many people can he take out with a butcher knife before he is stopped?

So unless he is a total moron he plans to use something other than a butcher knife for mass murder. Maybe fertilizer for an explosion in the theatre. But isn't that being watched by Homeland Security? Is he going to park a truck packed with fertilizer outside the theatre? Might it not be noticed? I mean, yes, of course there are a thousand other ways to kill people if one is motivated...but why make it easy?

Deb

 

[DiamondBrokersofFlorida]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Inanimate objects do not kill people by themselves. The instruments are not the problem; it's the angry people behind them, and unless you can remove ALL the things angry people could use as weapons, violence will continue to happen. Singling out guns isn't logical.

I think it is, al. Of course inanimate objects do not kill people by themselves, but guns grease the wheels of killing. They make it far easier for angry Americans to act on impulse (and also by accident) and to kill their fellows when having to find other weapons might mean sparing many lives. Some people who might pull out a gun and fire would hesitate to approach a larger person with a knife or cudgel. Someone full of road rage might calm down before deciding to run down his victim as did the man in the story posted. (Also: not everyone has the driving skill to hunt down another driver and kill him with a car!) Guns just make killing easy. Especially semi-automatic weapons. Saying that guns don't kill people is a cop out.

Deb

Sorry Deb, heartily disagree. ANY weapon greases the wheel of killing, and far more weapons are more *readily* accessible than guns. Guns are the LAST weapon to be legally readily accessible on impulse.

Speaking for my state, you cannot purchase a gun without a gun license. To get that, have to complete gun safety training at a state-approved facility. Upon completion, you have to file a license application, and approval of that application requires submitting to an extensive interview with a local detective in your town. When you finally get the license, you have to go to one of the legally authorized dealers to obtain the firearm, and then you have to fill out paperwork and submit it to your local municipality. That takes about 4-8 weeks in my state. [/b]This hardly lends itself to impulse.. The only way to hasten that process is to obtain a gun illegally........and in that case, gun laws don't help because you're already operating outside the law.

By comparison, I can get a 10" Kitchen-Aid butcher knife in under 10 minutes at my local Kohl's, and I don't need to worry about the larger guy fending me off with it if I'm able to attack from behind. With slightly more time (30 minutes), I can across the state border to obtain enough explosives at the fireworks retailer to blow up half my city block without so much as a backward glance. With only slightly more effort and a little time spent with Professor Internet, I could go to Agway to purchase enough fertilizer to torch an entire building.

With respect to your skill argument, I can assure you that not everyone could even strike a person by firing a gun, especially mortally. There is skill required there too.

I cannot think of ONE mass shooting incident that wasn't heavily planned and premeditated.....nothing impulse about it. There's a lot less impulse involved in that than there is in running someone off the road or grabbing a nearby kitchen knife in the heat of an argument.

ANYTHING can kill people if the people trying to kill want to kill. That's not exclusive to guns.

I can give you an incident of one that was not premeditated and was impulse, the one that I was in. The guy didn't like the neigbor kids and that day they ticked him off one time to many. Loaded up the car with semi automatic weapons, shot the kid then went to the neighborhood strip mall. Killed several people walking groceries to their car, ran accross the median, shot a few more people, went into a grocery store and shot out the front an back of the store at anything that moved, and meanwhile took 2 hostages in the store. Shot two cops that came into the parking lot before they could get out of the car and held up in the store until one of the hostages got him calmed down with beer from the grocery store. Finally gave up about 1.00 AM. Was it premeditated. I don't think so, he just went off his rocker. Palm Bay 1987.

 

[DiamondBrokersofFlorida]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Inanimate objects do not kill people by themselves. The instruments are not the problem; it's the angry people behind them, and unless you can remove ALL the things angry people could use as weapons, violence will continue to happen. Singling out guns isn't logical.

I think it is, al. Of course inanimate objects do not kill people by themselves, but guns grease the wheels of killing. They make it far easier for angry Americans to act on impulse (and also by accident) and to kill their fellows when having to find other weapons might mean sparing many lives. Some people who might pull out a gun and fire would hesitate to approach a larger person with a knife or cudgel. Someone full of road rage might calm down before deciding to run down his victim as did the man in the story posted. (Also: not everyone has the driving skill to hunt down another driver and kill him with a car!) Guns just make killing easy. Especially semi-automatic weapons. Saying that guns don't kill people is a cop out.

Deb

Sorry Deb, heartily disagree. ANY weapon greases the wheel of killing, and far more weapons are more *readily* accessible than guns. Guns are the LAST weapon to be legally readily accessible on impulse.

Speaking for my state, you cannot purchase a gun without a gun license. To get that, have to complete gun safety training at a state-approved facility. Upon completion, you have to file a license application, and approval of that application requires submitting to an extensive interview with a local detective in your town. When you finally get the license, you have to go to one of the legally authorized dealers to obtain the firearm, and then you have to fill out paperwork and submit it to your local municipality. That takes about 4-8 weeks in my state. [/b]This hardly lends itself to impulse.. The only way to hasten that process is to obtain a gun illegally........and in that case, gun laws don't help because you're already operating outside the law.

By comparison, I can get a 10" Kitchen-Aid butcher knife in under 10 minutes at my local Kohl's, and I don't need to worry about the larger guy fending me off with it if I'm able to attack from behind. With slightly more time (30 minutes), I can across the state border to obtain enough explosives at the fireworks retailer to blow up half my city block without so much as a backward glance. With only slightly more effort and a little time spent with Professor Internet, I could go to Agway to purchase enough fertilizer to torch an entire building.

With respect to your skill argument, I can assure you that not everyone could even strike a person by firing a gun, especially mortally. There is skill required there too.

I cannot think of ONE mass shooting incident that wasn't heavily planned and premeditated.....nothing impulse about it. There's a lot less impulse involved in that than there is in running someone off the road or grabbing a nearby kitchen knife in the heat of an argument.

ANYTHING can kill people if the people trying to kill want to kill. That's not exclusive to guns.

I can give you an incident of one that was not premeditated and was impulse, the one that I was in. The guy didn't like the neigbor kids and that day they ticked him off one time too many. Loaded up the car with semi automatic weapons, shot the kid then went to the neighborhood strip mall. Killed several people walking groceries to their car, ran accross the median, shot a few more people, went into a grocery store and shot out the front an back of the store at anything that moved, and meanwhile took 2 hostages in the store. Shot two cops that came into the parking lot before they could get out of the car and held up in the store until one of the hostages got him calmed down with beer from the grocery store. Finally gave up about 1.00 AM. Was it premeditated. I don't think so, he just went off his rocker. Palm Bay 1987.

 

[Rhea]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Sorry Rhea, I should read more carefully - I realised after I posted that you already answered.

Not at all! You word it so much better.

It's very interesting having moved here from the bible belt. Complete culture shock! It's amazing to me, knowing a little about the Dunblane shooting, that it took one incident in 1996 to make attempts to keep it from happening again. And to my knowledge, it did until Derrick Bird in 2010. I get scared and worried when I see guns here. Being in London I think I might see the armed response unit a wee bit more often than you do in rural Scotland

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I hear this argument all the time, but I don't think you can equate guns with 'other' things used to kill people at all. Knives, cars, fertilizers were created for particular important functions and are most times used for the purposes for which they were created. It would be senseless to outlaw them for this reason -even though people happen to use them to kill as well. Guns were designed to be killing machines, and although they can be used for protection, self-defense, and intimidation as well- I would venture to say in a lot cases they do exactly what they're designed to do - kill.

Guns actually weren't invented to be "killing machines"; they initially weren't invented for war. Guns were invented after the Chinese mixed a few substances together and discovered gunpowder, and they were developed for two primary reasons: to help them be more effective hunters for sustenance and also for sport. They weren't used as protection until later on.

It's true that someone who really wants to kill someone can find other ways to do it, but I don't think you can deny that guns make killing very easy. With a gun, you can inflict lethal damage from quite a distance away - no need to be close to your attacker and risk being fended off, and you can kill multiple people in several minutes.

Killing is easy for anyone with a strong enough motive, regardless of the way they go about it. If the goal is mass destruction, ANY method of mass destruction is effective. Hand grenades can kill multiple people in seconds and require far less skill than shooting a weapon. Those of you who think inflicting lethal damage is easy and requires little skill are ignoring the fact that 2/3 of the Colorado shooter's victims were not lethally wounded.

If I thought outlawing guns would actually achieve the objective.....to make it less easy for mass murderers to carry out their plans....I'd support it. But what he did wasn't "easy"; it took focus, intent, and MONTHS of planning and resources to purchase. Candidly, it would have actually been easier for him to obtain firearms through non-legal means than through legal ones.

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

This thread leaves me feeling both fascinated and frustrated.

Several PP seem to see things in absolute terms of all or nothing. Many focus on just one specific factor and seem to close their eyes to all other issues that are part of the big picture. There are more choices than completely banning guns vs practically anyone being able to buy one. Choices that can have a major impact on homicides, etc. It is pretty obvious that if you get into a fight, your spouse cheats on you, have a psychotic break, etc and have access to a gun there is a higher probability of really hurting someone. It is also faster and easier to kill several people with a gun than with a knife or a baseball bat.

Saying that well I could kill just as well with a knife or by running over someone with a car, and no one talks about banning knives and cars so why talk about banning guns is IMHO just ridiculous. There is a reason for why we need knives and cars. Oh and countries that don't allow guns usually don't allow people to carry knives in public either.

Also several PP have spoken about the training many gun owners have. That is great and as it should be, but the fact is that many people walking around with a gun don't have that training. Also, believing that just because you were trained to do one thing does not mean you do it. Most people panic. Increased control does not mean that responsible gun owners will have to give up their guns. It means that irresponsible people will have a harder time getting their hands on one.

While increased control over guns won't completely stop the misuse and killings it will have a positive effect.

I truly don't understand why some people think that owning a gun is part of their rights and freedom. If someone could please explain this I would be very grateful. I do realize that it has to do with your history and constitution but I still don't get it.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I can give you an incident of one that was not premeditated and was impulse, the one that I was in. The guy didn't like the neigbor kids and that day they ticked him off one time too many. Loaded up the car with semi automatic weapons, shot the kid then went to the neighborhood strip mall. Killed several people walking groceries to their car, ran accross the median, shot a few more people, went into a grocery store and shot out the front an back of the store at anything that moved, and meanwhile took 2 hostages in the store. Shot two cops that came into the parking lot before they could get out of the car and held up in the store until one of the hostages got him calmed down with beer from the grocery store. Finally gave up about 1.00 AM. Was it premeditated. I don't think so, he just went off his rocker. Palm Bay 1987.

To me, what you're describing isn't truly a rash impulse situation. By your description, you've said that he didn't like the neighborhood kids and had been ticked off by them on some number of prior occasions. To me, this is someone who builds a head of steam on something over a prolonged period of time and finally boils over. I firmly believe that once he boiled over, had guns not been readily accessible to him, he would have found another way. There are plenty of people who kill that don't have access to guns; when they are so motivated, they find a way to act upon their anger.

Granted, he may have had to choose a different method, a different time, or a different way to attack, but I seriously don't believe that if he didn't have legal guns, he would have scratched his head and said "well, gee, I'm so pissed off that I just want to kill these kids, but since I don't have any guns, I guess I'll just have to get over it." No way.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

We have no guns in our house. My son is friends with a boy who started talking about his dad's riffle to my son and my son is no longer allowed over there because the child claimed to have access to it. I have to say it wasn't just that the kid mentioned the gun...it has been his additional comments & behaviors that have become entirely innappropriate. He also has carving knives from boy scouts and made a joking jab at my son with the knife. I thought I could trust that mom and her son and my son are too old to be "babysat," however, clearly there is an exception when she lets them carve wood and doesn't check up on them... I know of other families who own guns and there haven't been any warning signs with one of the families...there are a few others that IF they own a weapon, I wouldn't let my kids play there anymore.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

hate to say it but i'd agree with Alj...

 

[diamondringlover]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

9+ my hubby collects guns, hand guns and rifles, and they are safely locked in a fireproof gun safe

 

[justginger]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Getting a gun is MUCH easier than a previous poster suggested, especially for the wrong type of people. A) steal it from a car. B) steal it from a garage. C) steal it from a shed. D) steal it from a relative - your dad's closet perhaps? No one has an issue with respectable, responsible people defending themselves. But those people sometimes start the chain of supply to criminals, which we DO have a problem with.

And for the previous poster who highlighted the mass shooting stats from overseas, this is misleading, partial information. You always have anomalies, outliers. Try listing fatal shootings of more than 6 individuals in the last 15 years by country. It would be extremely damning for American gun laws.

Suggesting that you ban cars due to fatal accidents is mildly amusing. At this point in our society's history, they are 100% vital to our economy. One could hardly say the same for firearms. Far more would be lost without cars than without guns - it's a case of the risk being worth the reward.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

This thread leaves me feeling both fascinated and frustrated.

Saying that well I could kill just as well with a knife or by running over someone with a car, and no one talks about banning knives and cars so why talk about banning guns is IMHO just ridiculous.

To me, it's equally ridiculous to say that banning a device that is statistically used FAR MORE lawfully than unlawfully is also just ridiculous.

There is a reason for why we need knives and cars.

I could easily debate that either of those are needs, either. Mankind managed to successfully live (and thrive) on earth for more millions of years prior to the invention of the car, and there are alternate forms of transportation. People can walk, ride bicycles, ride horses, or utilize strictly regulated public transportation. A car is not truly a need; it's a convenience. In fact, I could argue that it would be much harder to kill someone (or multiple someones) on a bicycle than in a car.

I could disagree that everyone personally needs access to knives, too.....it is a convenience to cut food instead of gnaw on it, and most things that need to be separated can be done with fire.

.....the fact is that many people walking around with a gun don't have that training. Also, believing that just because you were trained to do one thing does not mean you do it. Most people panic. Increased control does not mean that responsible gun owners will have to give up their guns. It means that irresponsible people will have a harder time getting their hands on one.

I'm all for better controls, but it's a fallacy to think that controls or laws will dissuade a wingnut like this guy in Colorado from finding another way to wreak havoc. You cannot effectively legislate against the wildly deviant.

I truly don't understand why some people think that owning a gun is part of their rights and freedom. If someone could please explain this I would be very grateful. I do realize that it has to do with your history and constitution but I still don't get it.

Because our Bill of Rights specifically says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". At the time, it was seen as a necessary component to ensure the security of a free State.

As with many other things, there are multiple legal uses for guns, including hunting and sport. I do believe it would be an injustice to deny millions of citizens the right to engage in those legal uses under the guise of trying to stop the half-dozen or so whackos per year who go on a rampage (who, properly motivated, would still find another way to kill.).

 

[LoveLikeCrazy]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

all great points AJ and i agree

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Getting a gun is MUCH easier than a previous poster suggested, especially for the wrong type of people. A) steal it from a car. B) steal it from a garage. C) steal it from a shed. D) steal it from a relative - your dad's closet perhaps? No one has an issue with respectable, responsible people defending themselves. But those people sometimes start the chain of supply to criminals, which we DO have a problem with.

You're actually reinforcing my point. All the examples above involve getting guns ILLEGALLY.....and that's exactly why banning guns won't work. Again, from earlier in the thread, drugs are completely illegal in this country.....and they're widely available. The fact that they are illegal has done NOTHING to slow those motivated to get them; all it's done is create a greater incentive for others outside the reach of U.S. law to serve a captive market.

Stealing them isn't lawful acquisition, and it's by no means easy (in non-Bubba states). I can't speak for all states, of course, but in my state, gun owners are required to store firearms either in locked gun safe or use trigger locks (which literally disable the utility of the firearm). Good luck trying to steal/use those.......LOL.

Suggesting that you ban cars due to fatal accidents is mildly amusing. At this point in our society's history, they are 100% vital to our economy. One could hardly say the same for firearms. Far more would be lost without cars than without guns - it's a case of the risk being worth the reward.

I can't agree - cars are not 100% vital to our economy. Cars are a convenience that, if outlawed, could be lived without. Not easily, and not conveniently, but mankind managed to do without them just fine prior to their existence. With the advance of technology, it's easy to envision a future with people movers that make cars obsolete. There are multitudes of people who can and do live without cars, and they adjust their lifestyle choices to make it work.

 

[ksinger]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Well, people can froth and moralize all they want, but the bottom line is that guns will never be banned completely in this country. Not without what would amount to an intrusion into our lives and a virtual police state and the resultant push-back the likes of which this country is not willing to endure.

So the real question becomes what PRACTICAL things can be done to reduce gun violence. And please remember that most of the laws pertaining to guns fall under the purview of the individual states, as do the punishments for gun crimes.

So any suggestions?...(I've been told I have to fix the salad...must fly....back in a bit!)

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

In 2007, there were 41,059 automobile fatalities in the U.S.

In that same year, there were 31,224 gun fatalities. Of those 31,224, more than half (56%) were suicide at 17,352. Gun deaths attributed to homicide (violence upon others) totaled 12,632.

More lives are lost to auto accidents than to guns. I wonder if we should ban car ownership too?

Where did you get your stats?

Not sure why it matters, but both are from the US Federal agencies - DOT and the CDC.

Like I said above - it wouldn't make sense to ban cars (even though many people die by them) because their purpose and value in modern society far exceeds their ability to cause damage.

I don't think I can make the same argument for guns..

You can't, and I respect that........but I can. There is purpose and value for the millions of people who lawfully use guns for hunting and sport, and for me, preserving their rights to continue doing so is far more logical and valuable to society than stripping away the rights of millions in an unsuccessful bid to stop a handful of whack-jobs.

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

This thread leaves me feeling both fascinated and frustrated.

Saying that well I could kill just as well with a knife or by running over someone with a car, and no one talks about banning knives and cars so why talk about banning guns is IMHO just ridiculous.

To me, it's equally ridiculous to say that banning a device that is statistically used FAR MORE lawfully than unlawfully is also just ridiculous.

There is a reason for why we need knives and cars.

I could easily debate that either of those are needs, either. Mankind managed to successfully live (and thrive) on earth for more millions of years prior to the invention of the car, and there are alternate forms of transportation. People can walk, ride bicycles, ride horses, or utilize strictly regulated public transportation. A car is not truly a need; it's a convenience. In fact, I could argue that it would be much harder to kill someone (or multiple someones) on a bicycle than in a car.

I could disagree that everyone personally needs access to knives, too.....it is a convenience to cut food instead of gnaw on it, and most things that need to be separated can be done with fire.

.....the fact is that many people walking around with a gun don't have that training. Also, believing that just because you were trained to do one thing does not mean you do it. Most people panic. Increased control does not mean that responsible gun owners will have to give up their guns. It means that irresponsible people will have a harder time getting their hands on one.

I'm all for better controls, but it's a fallacy to think that controls or laws will dissuade a wingnut like this guy in Colorado from finding another way to wreak havoc. You cannot effectively legislate against the wildly deviant.

I truly don't understand why some people think that owning a gun is part of their rights and freedom. If someone could please explain this I would be very grateful. I do realize that it has to do with your history and constitution but I still don't get it.

Because our Bill of Rights specifically says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". At the time, it was seen as a necessary component to ensure the security of a free State.

As with many other things, there are multiple legal uses for guns, including hunting and sport. I do believe it would be an injustice to deny millions of citizens the right to engage in those legal uses under the guise of trying to stop the half-dozen or so whackos per year who go on a rampage (who, properly motivated, would still find another way to kill.).

This is exactly what I mean by all or nothing mentality.

I am not for a complete ban of guns. I am for realizing that the lack of control currently exercised over gun use in some countries is a big problem. It is easier to kill with a gun, that does not mean that it is impossible to kill without one. A guy going on a rampage with a gun will kill and injure more people than if he had used a knife. Guns should be used responsibly and that includes learning how to use them, not leaving them around the house, not carrying weapons when going to the movies ... This will not always stop those really intent on killing someone but it will diminish the deaths due to a heat of the moment situation, fights and accidents.

I really agree with your previous post, more humane cultural norms do affect crime rates. Apart from that I still think Sweden is an interesting example for this discussion. A quick search shows that we are at the top 10 countries in the world in terms of gun ownership and second in the European Union ( our number tops that chart) but at the same time we have a really low homicide rate per capita. The same can not be said for the US who is at the top of the charts for the developed countries (comparing to western Europe, Canada, Australasia, Japan, etc) in terms of homicide rate per capita. This indicates that through the responsible and controlled use of guns people can still pursue legal uses of guns such as hunting and sport but not at the cost of more people being killed. How can this not be something to strive for?

Regarding the right to bear firearms. I completely understand the reasons behind that being included in the constitution when it was written. Today we live in a different world and no longer is this necessary in order to defend the US right to be a free state. But some people still seem to feel that the right to bear guns is inalienable and should in no shape nor form be infringed upon. Some seem to think that increasing control of guns will lead to the infringement of their freedoms in other areas. Therefore in order to "safeguard" peoples freedoms and rights then it seems to be ok that some people will get hurt. This type of attitude is not as prevalent in the countries that I have experience from and I therefore have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

So the real question becomes what PRACTICAL things can be done to reduce gun violence. And please remember that most of the laws pertaining to guns fall under the purview of the individual states, as do the punishments for gun crimes.

So any suggestions?...(I've been told I have to fix the salad...must fly....back in a bit!)

ask all the criminals to turn in their guns.

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Well, people can froth and moralize all they want, but the bottom line is that guns will never be banned completely in this country. Not without what would amount to an intrusion into our lives and a virtual police state and the resultant push-back the likes of which this country is not willing to endure.

So the real question becomes what PRACTICAL things can be done to reduce gun violence. And please remember that most of the laws pertaining to guns fall under the purview of the individual states, as do the punishments for gun crimes.

So any suggestions?...(I've been told I have to fix the salad...must fly....back in a bit!)

Some suggestions:
- Enforce that people buying a gun must be vetted and do a training course( not only in how to use it but in how to use it responsibly). People that want to drive have to take a drivers licence, a gun should be no different.
- Don't allow guns where alcohol is served (preferably don't allow guns to be worn unless they need to be, if you have it for hunted don't wear it to the mall).
- Guns must be properly stored in a gun safe. That way your grand kid won't shoot himself playing with it and it is much less liable to be stolen.

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Some posters seem convinced that criminals will always have access to guns even if they are outlawed. Well Sweden definitively allows guns we just make it harder for criminals to get them and it seems like it works. A jewelry store in a big mall got robbed last week. It was definitively well planned, they knew which entrance was not guarded, had a get away car ready that they abandoned 15 min after the robbery, got to the store before opening time but after the salespeople had gotten there so it was easy to get in and take the jewelry, etc.

Guess what weapon they used? A crowbar.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Some posters seem convinced that criminals will always have access to guns even if they are outlawed. Well Sweden definitively allows guns we just make it harder for criminals to get them and it seems like it works. A jewelry store in a big mall got robbed last week. It was definitively well planned, they knew which entrance was not guarded, had a get away car ready that they abandoned 15 min after the robbery, got to the store before opening time but after the salespeople had gotten there so it was easy to get in and take the jewelry, etc.

Guess what weapon they used? A crowbar.

do drug addicts have any problem accessing to illegal drugs?

 

[justginger]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Still on a tangent for my last contribution to this thread - the American economy would collapse without motor vehicles. Calling them a 'convenience' is a gross error. No shipping, no commuting, no fast police or ambulance service. No military assembly, no post service, no imports or exports. If you think the economy is in the crapper now, imagine the commercial sector with no transport beyond bicycles! Heavily enforcing super strict gun regulations would cause no such impact.

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Still on a tangent for my last contribution to this thread - the American economy would collapse without motor vehicles. Calling them a 'convenience' is a gross error. No shipping, no commuting, no fast police or ambulance service. No military assembly, no post service, no imports or exports. If you think the economy is in the crapper now, imagine the commercial sector with no transport beyond bicycles! Heavily enforcing super strict gun regulations would cause no such impact.

100% agree with you.